BRIJESH BHANOTE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 06, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2780/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 October 2021AY 2013-142 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and had submitted the necessary forms. Therefore, the appeals were rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee subsequently filed an application under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals before the ITAT are to be dismissed as infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: Ms. Suchitra KambleDr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 29.09.2021Pronounced: 07.10.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2780/Del/2018
ITA No. 2781/Del/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 31.01.2018.

2.

At the outset, it was brought to the notice of bench by the ld. AR that the assessee has filed application under the “Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act 2020” and has already submitted Form 1 & 2 and Form 3 have been issued by the designated authority.

3.

Keeping in view the exercise of option by the assessee to opt for the scheme, the appeal of the assessee is being dismissed as infructuous. & 2781/Del/2018 2 Brijesh Bhanote 4. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/10/2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →